Barrett, you ask some great questions. I still think VT got TA right. Its really about the dualism in TA’s epistemology. There are two sources of knowledge. That is clear in the early pages of the Summa. Everything else flows from there. As for having a “real” Thomist on the show, I think that is a good idea. You might see it sooner than you think….

Great question, Terry. All humans are made in the image and likeness of God. Their being image bearers does not depend on their level of mental capacity. As image bearers they know God. As fallen, they also suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness. And by grace that image is being renewed in them. Even if it is all on a scale much less than most of us. I think that is about as far as we can take it.

Good question Brad. Camden can speak for himself. But I would say reading Van Til on this, whether in his Nature and Scripture article or in Intro to ST would benefit you tremendously. Your question is a good one, but would entail quite a treatise here to answer. Read VT and see if that doesn’t help.

Hey Ben, thanks for this! I would be glad enough to have TA on our side here. I think the Reformed have and can continue to benefit from TA. There is nothing I would love more than to discover Thomas, Calvin and Van Til were all on the page after all.

My question is this, however. Can the cosmological argument really work without some notion of the analogia entis?

Hi Norman, its both true and not true. It is true in that God is really and truly revealing himself to man – and man gets the message. But precisely as he receives the message he is suppressing that truth in unrighteousness. He gets it, and as he gets it he distorts it, turning the truth into lie.

According to the Thomist commentary tradition, the formal object of metaphysics is being qua being and the material object is ens commune (common being). The philosopher explores and develops an idea of reality that is separated (abstracted) from individuating and changeable attributes. In doing so he acquires a deeper understanding of common being, that is, being as experienced, which does not properly include God. We do not have any ordinary, direct sense experience of God, so God cannot fall under the notion of metaphysics. Whatever one may think of this approach it should be conceded that Thomas does not intend for God to be covered under a notion of being that includes God and creatures. The philosopher may come to recognize the existence of God, but only on the basis of realizing the inadequacy of common being to account for itself. But even at this point, the affirmation of God is not based on a deduction from God’s essence or any universal idea shared by God and creatures.

I agree with other scholars, who recognize some maturation in Thomas’s view of analogy, which we would only expect of someone who wrote and taught as much as Thomas. I believe that in Thomas’s mature view, he uses the analogy of attribution rather than the analogy of proper proportion. We may attribute “terms” to God taken from experience (good, mighty, wise, etc.) analogously. We attribute wisdom to God because wisdom is something like God; note, God’s essence is not like creaturely wisdom.

Proper perfections like wisdom are limited, particular, divided, and incomplete similitudes of what God is mysteriously, simply, perfectly, without division, and superabundantly. The divine essence is a simple, superabundant, and transcendent reality that immeasurably exceeds all creatures; nevertheless His effects in creation may be said to be like Him. Notice, it is not said that “wisdom” is said of God and creatures because wisdom is a universal notion that may be applied to God and creatures equally. Rather God is the immeasurable and incomprehensible archetype (exemplar cause) of creation. And for this reason, terms like “wisdom” may be said to be like God.

Whether or not Thomas adequately handled this difficult matter well is open to debate. However, univocity should not be attributed to his doctrine.

Great program. This discussion brought a question to mind. How do we, from a reformed perspective, view and explain the relationship of general revelation (creation, stuff, etc) to special revelation (direct personal communication, the scriptures, etc)? Is it just that God has provided general revelation as the means for special revelation? Is there any way that special revelation is dependent on the “stuff” of general revelation?

I may be mixing categories (or worse), but I am curious what your take(s) would be on this. Thanks!

I’m not talking about salvation for those who were already saved, but their Christian experience AND for those who cannot be reached by reason alone. Yes, I know in the WCF Ch. 10, there was something about the elected who die in infancy or those who do not have the capability to be moved by the Word, but I’m still curious.

I do appreciate the time.
-Barrett